Chinese Economics Thread

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Maybe some parts of it. But surely not when it comes to statistics and othe data that you can analyze. Every bigger company have teams of people who do that every day and it seems like it works for them. When economics touches mathematic or informatic matters I wouldn't call that as pseudo-science.
Well, the portion that deals directly with solid numbers is certainly solid mathematics and not pseudoscience but the overall purpose of economics is to apply the trends generated by those solid numbers to attempt to predict future numbers and that is pseudoscience.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Actually, what ends up happening is that thousands of such models are made. A few of them happen to be correct by chance. Those models are then trumpeted in 2018, and end up being completely wrong.

I have a hard time believing that you, as a scientist, would not see this. The cornerstone of actual science is replicability. Anyone can do experiments and reach conclusions. Progress is only made when everyone else is able to replicate those experiments and reach the same conclusions. Only then do we know that those conclusions are valuable.

The opposite happens in Economics. Everyone makes their own data models and theories. Even those theories that are proven wrong time after time (i.e. Gordon Chang) still get trotted out as authoritative. Can you imagine doing research in any actual science using that kind of methodology?

It simply means economics as a science is still immature. It does not mean it is not science. It is precisely because I am a scientist myself, I remind myself to be open-minded about other disciplines. and more importantly, be respectful of other disciplines.

Yes, replicability is the key. Yet, up to 70% of the experiments (including physics, chemistry and biology) published in peer reviewed journals cannot be repeated. It simply means we still don't know the whole truth yet. Many times, when we repeat an experiment, we unknowingly change some conditions that we don't even know about. that again means our understanding of the natural world is still immature. Human is also part of the natural world. Our thought process, including all the politics and emotions and everything, is still governed by natural laws and should be interpretable by mathematics, which is what economics is doing.

If you use replicability to judge whether something is science, then everything is pseudo-science. As I said, 70% of ALL published experiments cannot be repeated. It is a huge issue in science. We are currently still trying to figure out how to solve it. The current working theory is that we don't report all the conditions in detail when we publish. So many high-impact journals are making us list all possible conditions almost like a protocol when we publish. It's a huge pain but...

I can't believe you'd compare physics to economics! Physics is a proven science, even more solid than biology where if you do something the same way for an infinite number of times, you'd get the same results every time. The only time when you'd get a different result is if you inadvertently did something differently or introduced a new variable. That is the polar opposite of economics in terms of reliability where you couldn't try the same thing twice without getting different results.

If anybody could get economics up to beyond pseudoscience, making money would be too easy!

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that physics is more proven science than biology... Both are obviously science. Physics is more developed than biology, but it doesn't make it "more science" than biology.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
It simply means economics as a science is still immature. It does not mean it is not science. It is precisely because I am a scientist myself, I remind myself to be open-minded about other disciplines. and more importantly, be respectful of other disciplines.

Yes, replicability is the key. Yet, up to 70% of the experiments (including physics, chemistry and biology) published in peer reviewed journals cannot be repeated. It simply means we still don't know the whole truth yet. Many times, when we repeat an experiment, we unknowingly change some conditions that we don't even know about. that again means our understanding of the natural world is still immature. Human is also part of the natural world. Our thought process, including all the politics and emotions and everything, is still governed by natural laws and should be interpretable by mathematics, which is what economics is doing.

If you use replicability to judge whether something is science, then everything is pseudo-science. As I said, 70% of ALL published experiments cannot be repeated. It is a huge issue in science. We are currently still trying to figure out how to solve it. The current working theory is that we don't report all the conditions in detail when we publish. So many high-impact journals are making us to list all possible conditions almost like a protocol when we publish. It's a huge pain but...



I don't know how you came to the conclusion that physics is more proven science than biology... Both are obviously science. Physics is more developed than biology, but it doesn't make it "more science" than biology.
Well, since we agree that reliability is key, then a "young science" should be further-developed to become a real science before it is regarded as one, just like a biology major must first get his MD before being considered a doctor; he is not considered a "young doctor" just because of his potential to become one. If the reliability is so low, then it's not much different than predicting personality from astrology or palm-reading. Technically, by your definition of young science as one that simply hasn't reached a level of understanding yet thus leading it to have a low level of reliability, anything could qualify as a young science. Throwing a dart blindfolded to try to hit your friend's moving laser pointer could be a young science! For me, something must achieve a level of reliability such that it is useful to societal development for it to be considered science, so once some pseudosciences get there, they can be promoted, but not before.

As for your 70% figure, well, the only reasons that an experiment could be unreproducible is if it were done differently (real science confounded by uncontrolled variable) or if the data was falsified (not real science).

I said that physics is more solid than biology because physics generally produced fewer exceptions and is easier to prove to the layman than biology. For example, in a confined room, if you released a ball from the same height 1,000 times, it would impact the floor with the same force 1,000 times (possibly with minute differences due to the sensitivity of your measuring instrument) but if you used penicillin to kill 1,000 bacteria, you may get a few that survive with immunity, and although you could explain that that is still solid because you found the reason and difference in those resistant bacteria, the data does still seem slightly more flimsy than the physics experiment, especially to the untrained. Make no mistake; they are both solid real sciences in my book.
 
Last edited:

vesicles

Colonel
As for your 70% figure, well, the only reasons that an experiment could be unreproducible is if it were done differently (real science confounded by uncontrolled variable) or if the data was falsified (not real science).

You need to contact NSF and NIH and let them you have found the solution to a problem that has confounded the entire scientific community for the past many decades...

Well, since we agree that reliability is key, then a "young science" should be further-developed to become a real science before it is regarded as one, just like a biology major must first get his MD before being considered a doctor; he is not considered a "young doctor" just because of his potential to become one. If the reliability is so low, then it's not much different than predicting personality from astrology or palm-reading. Technically, by your definition of young science as one that simply hasn't reached a level of understanding yet thus leading it to have a low level of reliability, anything could qualify as a young science. Throwing a dart blindfolded to try to hit your friend's moving laser pointer could be a young science! For me, something must achieve a level of reliability such that it is useful to societal development for it to be considered science, so once some pseudosciences get there, they can be promoted, but not before.

Although replicability is a key factor in science, it is not what defines science. Let me give you an example. In ancient times, eclipse was thought to be caused by a dog in the heaven swallowing the moon. One evidence for this hypothesis is that moon comes back when you beat drums for a while. Since dogs are scared of loud noises, this would be considered proof that a heavenly dog eat the moon to cause eclipse. And you can repeat the whole thing thousands and thousands of times and expect to get the same outcome every time. If you don't believe me, you can try it yourself. Whenever there is eclipse, you can start beating drums. I can guarantee you that the moon will come back when you beat the drum for a while. It is absolutely replicable. However, is it a scientific theory? No!

What defines science vs. pseudo-science is the method not the outcome. A young human being is not as capable as mature grown human, but he/she is still considered as human. You can't call a kid a dog simply because he cannot do calculus. Economics may be less mature but economists still strive to adhere to proven scientific methods.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
You need to contact NSF and NIH and let them you have found the solution to a problem that has confounded the entire scientific community for the past many decades...



Although replicability is a key factor in science, it is not what defines science. Let me give you an example. In ancient times, eclipse was thought to be caused by a dog in the heaven swallowing the moon. One evidence for this hypothesis is that moon comes back when you beat drums for a while. Since dogs are scared of loud noises, this would be considered proof that a heavenly dog eat the moon to cause eclipse. And you can repeat the whole thing thousands and thousands of times and expect to get the same outcome every time. If you don't believe me, you can try it yourself. Whenever there is eclipse, you can start beating drums. I can guarantee you that the moon will come back when you beat the drum for a while. It is absolutely replicable. However, is it a scientific theory? No!

What defines science vs. pseudo-science is the method not the outcome. A young human being is not as capable as mature grown human, but he/she is still considered as human. You can't call a kid a dog simply because he cannot do calculus. Economics may be less mature but economists still strive to adhere to proven scientific methods.
Uh, that actually qualifies as a scientific theory, and you can produce an experiment to attempt to disprove it. If you didn't beat drums, would the eclipse still end? Theory dis-proven.

A young human is considered a human but because he cannot do calculus, you cannot call him a mathematician, or a young mathematician.

A bigger problem on a fundamental level is that you cannot use scientific methods to do economics because you are predicting other humans, which can tailor their movements to counter your predictions to take advantage of you. The laws of nature do not do that; they are there for you to figure out. When you try to figure out a human by doing something to him 10 times, he will learn and adapt himself, causing your trend to disappear and your results to change each time. For example, if Trump slapped huge tariffs on Mexico and Mexico retaliated a certain way but it failed, causing the final result to benefit the US, you could not make the conclusion that tariffs have a certain effect in general because once Trump tries to do the same thing to Canada, Canada will learn from Mexico's mistake and react differently. This is a chess game; not science. But at the end of the day, if you believe that a chess match (against a person, not a computer) qualifies as science, then by that definition, economics is also one, but much more complicated.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Although replicability is a key factor in science, it is not what defines science. Let me give you an example. In ancient times, eclipse was thought to be caused by a dog in the heaven swallowing the moon. One evidence for this hypothesis is that moon comes back when you beat drums for a while. Since dogs are scared of loud noises, this would be considered proof that a heavenly dog eat the moon to cause eclipse. And you can repeat the whole thing thousands and thousands of times and expect to get the same outcome every time. If you don't believe me, you can try it yourself. Whenever there is eclipse, you can start beating drums. I can guarantee you that the moon will come back when you beat the drum for a while. It is absolutely replicable. However, is it a scientific theory? No!

What defines science vs. pseudo-science is the method not the outcome. A young human being is not as capable as mature grown human, but he/she is still considered as human. You can't call a kid a dog simply because he cannot do calculus. Economics may be less mature but economists still strive to adhere to proven scientific methods.

Obviously replicability by itself is not science.

What makes science, science, is the replicability of experiments that determine causation.

You say that up to 70% of experiments published in peer-reviewed journals cannot be replicated. How many of those 70% become the foundation of scientific theories? If I formulated a theory and supported it with a bunch of experiments I conducted myself, but nobody else can replicate my experiments, how widely accepted do you think my theory would be?

A "young science" should still be science. Psychology is a young science, arguably younger than economics. Yet, psychology is an actual science because we can conduct experiments that can be replicated, and thus determine causation. That people are risk-averse is a phenomenon that can be tested repeatedly in randomly selected groups of people. On the other hand, the effect of higher or lower tax rates on the economy is still the source of endless contention.
 
in the meantime I recalled a discussion I had had with somebody doing let's call it
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and from what I figured the models work* pretty well except when 9/11 comes or something

* in the sense of risk assessment (but it'd be a different matter if Managers turned out to be Crooks :)
 

vesicles

Colonel
You say that up to 70% of experiments published in peer-reviewed journals cannot be replicated. How many of those 70% become the foundation of scientific theories? If I formulated a theory and supported it with a bunch of experiments I conducted myself, but nobody else can replicate my experiments, how widely accepted do you think my theory would be?

I have no clue how much of the 70% of experiments unreplicable becomes foundations. But that is not what we are arguing. Your point is replicability defines whether or not a discipline can be considered science. My counter point is that many experiments coming out of highly established science labs (including Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and biology) cannot be replicated. Yet, these are still considered top-notch scientists doing cutting edge science. thus, replicability does not define science, although it is a pivotal part of doing successful science.

Unable to replicate an experiment does not automatically discredit the experiments. As I mentioned before, there are many factors involved. Most common factors are not fraud but unknown/uncontrollable conditions. And in many cases, the original experimenters were actually correct. Others cannot replicate their data because everyone had different conditions.

An interesting example. A few years ago (2013, I think), Nature published a study suggesting that lab animals like mice respond to male vs. female technicians in vastly different and almost opposite ways. Apparently, the testosterone in male technicians makes lab animals highly agitated and they begin to behave in a defensive manner. And their physiological parameters all change accordingly. So if the original experimenter was male, then all other labs with female technicians cannot replicate their original data. I myself have experienced this. With that said, can you dismiss the data collected by male technicians just because they cannot be replicated by others? It is still valid data, just under conditions previously not expected to have any effects on the outcome. Who knows. Those data collected by male technicians and previously thought to be unreplicable may become basis for groundbreaking theories that revolutionize medicine... You cannot simply dismiss it just because it cannot be replicated.

I have been in both shoes. I have attempted to replicate many others' experiments. I would say at least 50% of times, I couldn't replicate the findings. Then a handful times, I actually met with some of the original experimenters. I asked them about those experiments and was able to repeat the experiments after they gave me some tips (most of time it's about very basic conditions). However, most of the time, I had to let the project go because I couldn't replicate them and had no way of contacting the original experimenters. Then many times at meetings and conferences, people come up to me and ask me why they couldn't replicate my findings. I then asked them what they did and corrected a few things. Then they were able to replicate my findings. So based on my experience, replicability is a very complex thing...

Now, let's get back to economics. Many economists are actually classically trained mathematicians and physicists. they know how to do science and how to do it properly. As I said before, economics is such a complex system. Economists need to simplify their models and make assumptions to get their models working. This means that their models become very limited. Yet, this does not mean they are doing pseudo-science. They just need more time to improve and perfect their models.
 
Top